TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of Rs.13,73,52,170/- after claiming deduction of Rs.51,54,192/- u/s 80IA of the Act. The ADIT(CPC) issued letter dated 04.06.2020 proposing various adjustments including disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act on account of failure to file Form 10CCB before the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. Assessee filed revised return on 24.06.2020 to correct various adjustments proposed and along with the revised return the assessee filed Form 10CCB for the deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 26.08.2020 denying the claim for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and contended that filing of Form 10CCB along with the return of income before the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot mandatory but directory and that if the audit report is filed at any time before framing of assessment the requirement of section 80IA(7) would be met observing as under: "According to the Commissioner of Income Tax since no audit report, duly verified and signed in the prescribed Form no.10CCB under Rule 18BBB had been furnished along with the return, the condition for claiming deduction had not been satisfied and, therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer in allowing rebate u/s 80-IA was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. After issuance of the notice the Commissioner of Income Tax passed the order dated 29.03.2007 whereby he held that he was fully satisfied that the assessment which had been completed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, there would be substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 80J(6A). The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam, 208 ITR 481 (Mad.), which, again, while considering the provisions of Section 80J(6A), took the same view as that of the Gujarat High Court. We notice that there are other decisions of other Courts taking the same view. The decisions being, CIT vs. Shivanand Electricals (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bombay); Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.); Cit vs. Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (P&H). In view of this long line on decisions of various High Courts in considering the provisions of Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi High Court, by following the judgements of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481 / 75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v.Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/ 117 Taxman 707 (Mad.) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have been met. 6. That is also the consistent view of the other High Courts, including the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 / 75 Taxman 93 (Bom.), apart from Gujarat High Court in Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) and Punjab and Haryana High Cou....